04/10/2015 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB82 | |
| HB102 | |
| HB85 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 82 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 2015
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Liz Vazquez, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Colver
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative David Talerico
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 82
"An Act relating to funding for Internet services for schools."
- MOVED CSHB 82(EDC) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 102
"An Act providing for funding of educational services for
students in residential psychiatric treatment centers."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 85
"An Act relating to college and career readiness assessments for
secondary students; and relating to restrictions on the
collection, storage, and handling of student data."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 82
SHORT TITLE: INTERNET SERVICES FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FOSTER
01/28/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/15 (H) EDC, FIN
04/10/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 102
SHORT TITLE: RESIDENTIAL PSYCH CTR; EDUC. STDRS/FUNDS
SPONSOR(s): EDUCATION
02/11/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/15 (H) EDC, FIN
03/20/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/20/15 (H) Heard & Held
03/20/15 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/08/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/08/15 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 4/10/15>
04/10/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 85
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT DATA & ASSESSMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REINBOLD
01/28/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/15 (H) EDC, FIN
04/06/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/06/15 (H) Heard & Held
04/06/15 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/08/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/08/15 (H) Heard & Held
04/08/15 (H) MINUTE(EDC)
04/10/15 (H) EDC AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSHB 82, as prime sponsor.
PAUL LABOLLE, Staff
Representative Neal Foster
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis, on behalf
of Representative Foster, prime sponsor on CSHB 82.
LINDA THIBODEAU, Director
Division of Libraries, Archives & Museums
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSHB 82, answered
questions.
ROBIN JOHNSON, Technology Representative
Nome Public Schools
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the Nome Public Schools
support passage of CSHB 82.
POSIE BOGGS
Non-Profit Literacy Programs
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 82.
JANET OGAN, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CS for HB 102, on behalf of
Representative Keller, sponsored by the House Education Standing
Committee, which he chairs.
EVELYN ALSUP, Director
Education
North Star Behavioral Health
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSHB 102, testified
and answered questions.
MICHAEL LYONS, Vice President
Specialty Education
Universal Health Services of Delaware
Brookhaven, Pennsylvania
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSHB 102, testified
in support and responded to questions.
LUCY HOPE, Director
Student Support Services
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concerns for CS HB 102.
DAVID BOYLE
Alaska Policy Forum
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSHB 102, offered
concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as the sponsor, presented a change
to CSHB 85, Version F.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:05 AM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Education Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Vazquez,
Drummond, Talerico, and Keller, were present at the call to
order. Representatives Colver and Kreiss-Tomkins arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 82-INTERNET SERVICES FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS
8:04:08 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 82, "An Act relating to funding for Internet
services for schools."
8:04:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved CSHB 82, Version 29-LS0307\W as the
working document. There being no objection, Version W was
before the committee.
8:05:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, Alaska State Legislature,
paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Last year when the legislature passed its omnibus
education bill a program was created to help schools
improve their internet service. The main driver for
the need for increased internet speed and capacity was
the implementation of the Department of Education's
online testing. With the implementation of this
program two groups were created, those who had
10megbits of service in 2014 and those who didn't.
This bright line poses a problem in that school
districts' internet contracts don't run on a yearly
basis. They tend to run for periods of 3, 4, or 5
years. The Nome Public Schools for example had a
contract that expired in 2013. While renewing that
contract they were informed by the department that
they would need to increase their internet capacity in
order to comply with requirements for online testing.
The school district did the right thing and took money
from other places in their budget to fund that
requirement. Because of the timing of that action
they are not eligible for the program established last
year. This bill seeks to correct this problem.
8:07:23 AM
PAUL LABOLLE, Staff, Representative Neal Foster, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the sectional analysis on the CS for HB
82, stating Section 1, reaches back in time for the service
level that is the keystone for qualification for the program.
He advised that when House Bill 278 was passed, the key driver
for qualification for this internet program was to be part of
the Federal E-Rate Program and have less than 10mgbits of
service as of the effective date of the bill in 2014. He
reiterated that HB 82 goes back in time to the qualification
requiring schools to be part of the Federal E-Rate Program but
the internet service level had to be below 10mgbits in 2013, and
acknowledged that school district contracts work through multi-
year cycles, not single year cycles. He referred to Sec. 2, and
advised it prepares for additional funding in the supplemental
budget allowing schools to qualify for funding if supplemental
funding is available. He offered that this irrelevant section
could be eliminated or remain. He noted that currently the
program is funded at $3.6 million and is in both the House of
Representative and the Senate side of the operating budget so it
is a "non-conferenceable" item. Implementation of this
legislation, he explained, will allow the same amount of money
to be spread across more school districts, and the amount of
money it will cost the state won't change.
8:10:01 AM
CHAIR KELLER clarified that if Section 2 remains and generates a
fiscal note, the Finance Committee would be involved, or this
committee could calculate a zero fiscal note or determine the
section is not necessary and the bill could go to the floor and
be a factor in the end game.
MR. LABOLLE responded that "maybe" Chair Keller is correct as
the bill has a Finance Committee referral, but if there is a
zero fiscal note it is possible the House Finance Committee
would waive that referral.
8:11:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how many schools would be affected.
MR. LABOLLE deferred to the Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), but opined the number is approximately seven
school districts.
8:11:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that she is confused by this
chart as it shows an approximate $6.2 million cost to upgrade to
10megabits per second, and the FY2015 total award to each school
district is just under $5 million. She asked whether that is
the annual cost of this program.
MR. LABOLLE answered that last year, with the passage of House
Bill 278, $5 million was appropriated to the program and that is
the amount awarded to the schools. He noted it has been reduced
in this year's budget to $3.6 million, which is the amount to be
distributed to the participating school districts.
8:12:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented that hopefully it will come up
in conference committee as Broadband is one of the topics for
conversation.
MR. LABOLLE advised that both the House of Representatives and
the Senate passed $3.6 million in the Broadband grant so it is a
"non-conferenceable" item.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND responded "That is unfortunate." She
advised she has traveled to Nome on several occasions and has
been disturbed by the lack of adequate internet access for the
public schools. She opined it is critical with testing and
curriculum only available via Broadband to provide this to
schools and stated she is completely in support of this bill.
8:13:41 AM
LINDA THIBODEAU, Director, Division of Libraries, Archives &
Museums, Department of Education and Early Development, advised
that the division distributed the funding this current fiscal
year.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Thibodeau to explain the charge
and how much reduction, or additional schools would be added,
and what proportional reduction among those would receive a
portion of the $3.69 million.
MS. THIBODEAU responded that if the supplemental funding was not
included, the fiscal note would change. She was uncertain
whether Representative Seaton was asking whether the
supplemental funding is necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that she should assume Sec. 2,
of the bill is deleted. He said he is referring to Section 1,
and the $3.6 million distribution among districts for the
discounted E-Rate, and asked how many more school districts
would there be, and how much of prorated discount would be to
the other districts that are receiving funds under the program.
He offered that he may be confused on the application of this,
and to correct him.
MS. THIBODEAU replied that EED did not collect information on
how many districts, or how many extra schools ... how many
schools in FY2014 would want this internet, or need this
internet upgrade because it collected the amount they were
paying and not bandwidth information. She advised the
department did not have the information as to who needed upgrade
bandwidth until it received the applications for this year's
funding. At that point, she explained, what is shown in the
chart for the funding is who applied and qualified for the
program which was 28 districts, 122 schools. She mentioned that
Representative Foster advised that seven more districts might
qualify, but the department would have to wait and see when that
happens. The department doesn't know how many districts have
applied or schools, what their costs would be, what level of
bandwidth they would need to upgrade to get to 10, who their
vendor is, and what their fiber is or their mode of delivery of
interest because bandwidth costs are different for every
location. She said that during the application time the
department would have to collect and perform the pro rata
distribution with the funding available.
8:17:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that the seven districts have
already upgraded to 10, but were looking at moving back the date
so they can qualify for the discounted program.
MS. THIBODEAU answered that is her understanding as well.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that it is unknown within the
seven districts how many schools it includes and it won't be
known until the distribution is made.
MS. THIBODEAU said "That is correct." The numbers in the fiscal
note relate only to the schools and school districts currently
in the program.
8:19:00 AM
CHAIR KELLER referred to the department's fiscal note Ms.
Thibodeau provided of $4,064,000 is the total cost, of which
$3.[6] has been allocated as it stands right now, and
acknowledged it hasn't passed.
MS. THIBODEAU agreed.
8:19:48 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:19 to 8:20 a.m.
8:20:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND reviewed the fiscal note and said the
costs are just over $4 million and the proposal is to reduce it
to $3.6 million. She asked whether each school will be
proportionately reduced depending upon the available funds.
MS. THIBODEAU responded that the districts may or may not decide
to reduce their bandwidth, and what they'll get is a percentage
of the costs they applied for, approximately 75-80 percent of
their costs. She indicated they could find the remainder of the
costs somewhere else in their budget.
CHAIR KELLER opened public testimony.
8: 21:53 AM
ROBIN JOHNSON, Nome Public Schools, stated she is representing
Nome Public Schools, and paraphrased from a prepared statement,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
In 2013 Nome Public Schools was in a contract renewal
year for our internet services. In order to acquire
E-Rate funding for our services we are tied to the
contract renewal timelines set forth by the E Rate
program. At this time EED had made it clear that
State online testing would be a reality during our
next year internet contract cycle, and we knew we did
not have the bandwidth we would need to meet be able
to test one at this time. We increased our bandwidth
from 3Mbps to 11Mbps in 2013, in anticipation of the
new testing requirements. This increase required that
an additional 76K come from our general fund to cover
just 20% of our annual internet expense. I ask that
you pass HB 82, making the program retroactive to June
30, 2013 so that we receive the same funding
opportunities as other districts in our situation.
When speaking about broadband we should not be left
out because of our contract renewal dates and the E-
Rate application timeline.
8:23:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how many schools are in the Nome
school district.
MS. JOHNSON replied there are four schools in the district,
which are all based upon one internet connection.
8:24:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked the amount of their total school
budget.
MS. JOHNSON said she is a technology representative and doesn't
have that information.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ surmised that within Ms. Johnson's
division there is a budget, or does she not know about the
budget.
MS. JOHNSON responded she has a budget for the technology
department and the internet services are under Communication.
She advised the total internet amount the vendor receives is
$381,000 for the annual internet service, with public schools
paying 20 percent of that bill, and the E-Rate program paying
the remainder.
MS. JOHNSON, in response to Representative Vazquez, answered
that GCI is their internet provider.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ surmised that the schools pay 20 percent
and the rest is paid through the E-Rate.
MS. JOHNSON said she was correct, and it is for the 2014-2015
school year. Next year their E-Rate eligibility has increased
and they will be refunded 85 percent making their costs 15
percent, she explained.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ queried what the increase is attributed
to.
MS. JOHNSON responded that the percentage they are eligible for
is based upon the (indisc.) reduced lunch count of students in
the district, so it changes every year.
8:26:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked the source of the GCI signal,
satellite or microwave from Southcentral Alaska.
MS. JOHSON replied that it is microwave from Southcentral
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recalled a fiber networks coming out of
Ireland across the top of Canada and the United States heading
for Japan. She opined they were going to drop internet service
on the Northern and Northwest coast of Alaska. She asked Ms.
Johnson whether she was aware of its existence and how soon it
will arrive in the Nome area.
MS. JOHNSON responded that she is aware of the Quintillion
Network and opined there are "rumblings" that it will not happen
at this point due to the expense of bringing that hub into the
community. She remarked that if it were to happen it would be a
year or two out before it would take place.
8:28:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER clarified that the terrace system is a
fiber optic system across the tundra and when it gets closer to
the coast it is relayed microwave tower to microwave tower, and
is being extended all through the North and past Nome. He
explained the microwave speed is almost as fast as fiber but a
more economical system. He said the "over the top route" ...
would have cheaper internet because it would be going to a place
such as Japan, but he did not know whether it was capitalized
for the over the top portion.
8:28:55 AM
POSIE BOGGS, Non-Profit Literacy Programs, said she is
testifying on behalf of Literate Nation, Alaska Coalition,
Alaska Branch of the International Dyslexia Association,
Decoding Dyslexia, and herself. She referred to the fact
Alaska's literacy rates have not moved significantly in 10
years, that Alaska is last in reading, and related that literacy
is a concern. She advised she has been tracking technology in
literacy since 1994, when children were being "tortured" with
the first version of "Dragon Naturally Speaking 7." During
conferences she has attended, technology solutions have emerged
to assist the literacy problems in Alaska. She conveyed that
her business has been teaching students that school districts
have failed to teach to read, and she could be put out of
business with the new technology, and is "thrilled." She
explained that the new technology offers the potential to move
Alaska's reading levels significantly higher, but it requires
good solid broadband. There are virtual reading coaches and
internet based interventions, that Alaska could put into all of
the resource classes and move the students out of special
education. She described it as the best scientific research
regarding reading instruction Alaska has ever had, and noted she
is not selling any of the products. She asked the committee to
fund as much broadband as possible because adult illiteracy in
Alaska increases the per capita health care costs by $8,173.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted Ms. Boggs excitement and believes
she has the packet of information she gave her in February.
MS. BOGGS answered in the affirmative and noted that every child
in this state can be taught to read.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she would share the packet with the
committee.
8:34:35 AM
CHAIR KELLER closed public testimony.
8:34:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON described the discussion as the financial
distribution of an offset amount and opined it is a financial
question that is looking at a distribution between those that
qualify and how many qualify. The distribution rate may be in
question, due to the e-rate discount, and the preparation of a
chart may be helpful information for the committee. However, he
said, it is a financial distribution question and stated support
for the bill.
8:36:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ expressed hesitancy to support the bill,
lacking clarity for how the funding is working and why the
school district has a fiscal note of slightly over $4 million
for this fiscal year, which continues to 2020.
MR. LABOLLE responded that he had detailed conversations with
the Department of Education and Early Development (EED) about
the fiscal notes, and advised that the fiscal note isn't the
cost to the state as it is the total need. He explained that if
the legislature were to fully fund the program and need, this is
the cost anticipated. He noted a grant funds the program and
that grant program is the $3.6 million mention earlier, which is
what is funded in the FY2016 budget. He stated that $3.6
million is going out to the program regardless of implementation
of CSHB 82.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked whether it is a state or federal
grant.
MR. LABOLLE replied that the $3.6 million is a state grant, with
a Federal E-rate Internet program involved, and in order to
participate in this state program a participant must be a
qualified recipient of the E-rate program.
8:38:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ requested the name of the department
administering the state grant.
MR. LABOLLE answered the Department of Education and Early
Development.
8:39:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO thanked the sponsor for bringing the
bill as it is "really" appropriate, he said.
CHAIR KELLER remarked that he agrees with Representative Vazquez
but is willing to move the bill and let the House Finance
Committee review the bill.
8:39:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved to report CS for HB 82, labeled 29-
LS0307\W, Glover, 4/9/15, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 82(EDC) moved from the House Education
Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER echoed Chair Keller's comments to let the
House Finance Committee determine allocation of funds and future
liabilities.
8:41:01 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:41 p.m. to 8:44 a.m.
8:44:48 AM
HB 102-RESIDENTIAL PSYCH CTR; EDUC. STDRS/FUNDS
8:45:29 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 102, "An Act providing for funding of educational
services for students in residential psychiatric treatment
centers."
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ moved CS for HB 102, labeled 29-LS0519\P,
as the working document. There being no objection, Version P
was before the committee.
8:46:29 AM
JANET OGAN, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the CS for HB 102 and advised the intent
is to make it equitable for those in psychiatric residential
treatment centers for education, and to bring a collaboration
that when students are out of their home school district whether
they are in Anchorage or another part of Alaska, that their home
school's curriculum is considered in the process.
The intent is also to establish where the money comes from and
the bill states that wherever the student is enrolled, that the
money follows the student to the residential treatment center.
She noted that probably most of the students in the residential
psychiatric treatment centers are from Anchorage as very few
come in from other areas. She referred to Version P, and
explained it establishes, in coordination with the Department of
Health and Social Services, a program for the continuing
education of children admitted to residential psychiatric
treatment centers in the state, and approval of educational
programs provided at residential psychiatric treatment centers.
She said the bill includes the application process for approval
of educational programs, specifies the content of the
application including accountability standards similar to
charter schools, and educational funding to be provided to
residential treatment facilities similar to charter school
funding.
8:50:11 AM
EVELYN ALSUP, Director, Education, North Star Behavioral Health,
deferred to Mike Lyons.
8:50:35 AM
MICHAEL LYONS, Vice President, Specialty Education, Universal
Health Services of Delaware, advised that Universal Health
Services of Delaware is the parent company of North Star
Behavioral Health System in Anchorage. He said they appreciate
the awareness this bill has generated within the disability
community and various stakeholders throughout the state. He
explained that this committee substitute adds substantial
accountability measures to assist children residing in
psychiatric treatment facilities earn the educational credits
they need to move to the next grade level. He referred to the
existing statute AS 14.03.083, "Contracting for services," and
read "a school district may contract for educational services
provided to students in the district by an agency that is
accredited by the department under AS 14.07.020, and (b) of this
section. (b) states the department shall adopt regulations and
establish program standards for educational services that may be
contracted for by a school district." He explained that the
goal is to allow residential psychiatric treatment providers to
become the educational services providers, and existing statute
sets the framework for this.
8:52:45 AM
MR. LYONS referred to CSHB 102, Version P, and advised it
expands upon AS 14.07.0[20]. He referred to the first change,
[AS 14.07.020(a)(18), Section 1,] page 3, lines 29-31, which
read:
(18) establish, in coordination with the
Department of Health and Social Services, a program
for the continuing education of children who are
admitted to residential psychiatric treatment centers
in the state;
MR. LYONS surmised there is agreement that the ultimate goal is
to strengthen the service delivery model in the state to ensure
that not only will students' mental illness issues be addressed,
but educational opportunities strengthened. Mr. Lyons referred
to the second part of that [[AS 14.07.020(a)(19), Section 1,]
page 4, lines 1-2, which read:
(19) approve educational programs provided
at residential psychiatric treatment centers
[REPEALED].
MR. LYONS referred to new language that would strengthen that
approval process by EED, page 4, beginning line 6, Sec.
14.16.300 "Approval process for educational programs at
residential treatment centers," and explained it specifically
refers to over 22 accountability provision that a residential
psychiatric center must demonstrate to EED for approval of their
application. He referred to AS 14.16.300(a)(20), page 5, lines
24-26, which read:
(20) a commitment that, as a condition of
funding, the center shall only expend funds received
under AS 14.16.310 for educational services provided
at the center;
MR. LYONS said that all funds generated by the students must be
spent on their education, and education only, and it would be
audited by EED.
8:55:14 AM
MR. LYONS referred to a new section, AS 14.16.310, "Education
funding for students in residential psychiatric treatment
centers," page 6, beginning line 9, which specifically outlines
how the funding would be distributed to the residential
psychiatric treatment center. The intent, he advised, was to
have a majority stay with the child's resident school district
so when that child returns, that school district still has funds
to serve that child. Under the existing model, those funds go
to the school district where the facility is located and when
the child goes home, that school district is left to serve that
child. He opined this committee substitute gets the committee
closer to allow for this unique population of students and
environment to have the flexibility to deliver an education
program that best sets them up for transitioning home.
CHAIR KELLER advised that the committee's intent and goal is to
ascertain that these students are served appropriately according
to the intent of the legislature.
8:57:33 AM
MS. ALSUP referred the committee to a chart offered on the
screen, entitled "Comparison of Services," in order to explain
how this is being handled now at the Anchorage School District
in North Star Behavioral Health. She pointed out that one
school administrator is shared with several different
facilities, an administrative assistant shared with many
facilities, and a counselor that is .5 shared with many
facilities. She offered that six teachers are provided, two
teacher assistants, and only two-four hours of online
instruction. She said in the RPTC there are approximately four
to four and one half hours for middle and high school, and
elementary approximately five hours. She proposed that there
would be one on-site administrator, one on-site administrative
assistant, a part-time counselor - an ESE specialist which is a
special education administrator, 12 teachers, cross-train 10
mental health technicians to be the aides in the classroom, 5
hours of a hybrid model including direct instruction, online
instruction, direct teacher support, and video instruction that
can include the school of residence when appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked the acronym for ESE.
MS. ALSUP responded that it is an education specialist, and
could not answer in full detail.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that the education system uses
many acronyms and opined it is critical to keep the acronyms
straight. She said that counselors in the Anchorage School
District deal with hundreds of children and children are going
without graduation and work readiness counseling because their
funds are being cut.
MS. ALSUP responded that ESE means an exceptional child
specialist, which is a special education exceptional child
specialist.
MR. LYONS replied that ESE mean exceptional student education
specialist.
9:02:28 AM
CHAIR KELLER, with regard to the chart, noted that with the
school administrator there are no on-site services quantified,
and asked, from her experience, how often the school
administrator shows up on-site.
MS. ALSUP answered that this is the first school year that
(indisc.) has allowed North Star Behavioral Health to have vice
principals and the vice principals have been on-site five-six
times for the entire school year.
MS. ALSUP, in response to Chair Keller, answered that the vice
principals were on-site approximately one-two hours at a time.
9:03:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 4, line 29-31, and page
5, lines 1-3, and noted it was discussed within a previous
committee meeting, wherein the discussion was regarding a valid
teacher's certificate. He advised it was thought that the AS
14.30.250 was responsive to that, and included that it had to be
an Alaska teacher's certificate. Although, AS 14.32.250, is
teacher qualifications and a valid teacher's certificate is
required, and part of it is recognition of out-of-state
certificates. He advised, "I would like to at some point
whenever you feel it is appropriate to insert 'valid' before
'valid Alaska' ... after 'valid Alaska teacher's certificate,'
and on the next page on line 1 the same thing so that we're ..."
He advised he was bringing the issue up now because the
representation was that it was to be a valid Alaska teacher's
certificate, but the reference doesn't lead to that conclusion.
CHAIR KELLER stated that would lead the committee to a policy
decision and asked whether Representative Seaton prefers it to
be Alaska certification, and asked the reason. He said he would
have to ask EED what the meaning of it is, and whether there are
other teachers in Alaska operating with certification from out-
of-state.
9:05:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that sometimes there is a
preliminary recognition of a teacher's certificate until they
can [obtain an Alaska certificate], but the bill is not
requiring it to be an Alaska teacher certificate and he wants to
include the sponsor's intent.
MS. ALSUP stated it would not be a problem to add "Alaska" valid
teacher's certificate as the intent was that the statute is
there but it can be clarified.
9:06:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON advised that the Kenai Peninsula School
District has questions regarding how the funding is handled and
the aggregate allocation. He suggested that clarity could be
brought to how this will handled.
CHAIR KELLER opined the model was used from charter schools.
MS. ALSUP said it was addressed because there is a differential
rate depending upon where the school districts are located. She
said it was addressed by saying the amount appropriated to the
school district for the student enrolled is reduced under AS
14.17.400.
CHAIR KELLER asked where she was reading.
MS. ALSUP referred to [AS 14.16.310(d)], page 7, lines 14-16,
which read:
(d) If the amount appropriated to the school
district where the student is enrolled is reduced
under AS 14.17.400(b), the school district shall
reduce the funding provided to the residential
psychiatric treatment facility as necessary.
MS. ALSUP advised that North Star Behavioral Health is proposing
to take the funding from wherever the facility is located, that
would be the funding rate they would use, or it would take the
less of the two.
9:08:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he understands that portion of it,
but the school district itself is funded on all of the large and
small schools put together. He advised it is not clear as to
whether the bill is saying "Okay, if you came from Seldovia or
Tyonek, you know, how do we calculate that amount that goes ...
or Soldotna High School, whether it's there." He opined that
the funding model used deals with districts, and school size
factors are a factor, but it is unclear exactly when the money
is being transferred ... the money from a district will go for a
student to make sure it has been aligned. He asked whether it
is the average of all students in a district without the
geographic cost differential and whether that is the number, or
whether reaching back to an individual school within the
district.
CHAIR KELLER said that EED may be able to provide assistance.
9:10:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ opined that EED will need to confirm, but
there is a basic allocation for each individual student and
special needs students receive additional funding per student.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted the separation of the Anchorage
School District that has been providing this service. He asked
about the students enrolled in private schools and home schools,
without any input of money from the education system, whether
North Star Behavioral Health will absorb that in supplying these
educational services.
MS. ALSUP pointed out that last year, four percent of the
children were not attached to a school district in the state.
North Star Behavioral Health's intent is to educate those
children and work with the home schooling parents and align
those transcripts.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated it is important to determine how
a home school student, without money from the state, whether
this system will have North Star Behavioral Health providing the
educational services without a reimbursement from the state or
school districts.
9:13:47 AM
LUCY HOPE, Director, Student Support Services, Matanuska-Susitna
Borough School District, testified with concern for the proposed
language, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
In looking further at this bill's committee substitute
(P), we do not see anything referencing where a
student would actually be enrolled, whether this is
the district of the families' residence, or the
district where the RPTC is located. This has a
bearing on where high school credits or a diploma
would come from. Graduation requirements vary between
districts. As you know, teachers are required to be
highly qualified in each subject area, in order to
earn high school credits that lead to a diploma. If
the students remain enrolled in the school district
they came from, or in the district where the facility
is located, those districts cannot ignore the
regulations that address these teacher qualifications,
and yet they may be asked to issue credits or
diplomas.
In reference to the funding to the RPTCs coming from
the school district where a student is enrolled, we
remain concerned about a district turning over
implementation of an existing IEP to a private entity
without parent participation. According to IDEA
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act),
placement of a student is an IEP (Individual Education
Program) team decision, and that student's IEP remains
the responsibility of that school district. The
parent is an integral part of that IEP team. We do
not see a way to legally give away this responsibility
under federal law. In fact, we do not see parents
mentioned anywhere in this legislation. It concerns
us that this statute does not address a fundamental
requirement of federal law, which specifies that a
school district in which a private school is located
is responsible for special education services for that
child.
It seems that in the Committee Substitute, with the
addition of the adoption of regulations, approval
process to review and approve applications of an
educational program by the Department of Education and
Early Development, and then an appeal process to the
state Board of Education and Early Development, there
is now a cost to the state. We have already raised
concerns about fiscal impact to districts as a result
of this bill, and now see that there will also be a
fiscal impact to the state, as well.
In summary, we respectfully ask that these private
entities work with school districts in a collaborative
process to ensure educational services for students.
We do not believe this bill will assist in that
effort.
9:16:40 AM
CHAIR KELLER asked Mr. Lyons or Ms. Alsup to address Ms. Hope's
concern regarding enrollment as his understanding is that it is
clarified in the committee substitute.
MS. ALSUP responded that North Star Behavioral Health would
leave the child enrolled in the home school district.
MR. LYONS reiterated that the child would remain enrolled in
their district of residence, which allows them to open
communication between the facility and the resident school
district, which is an important piece to this legislation. He
referred to Ms. Hope's concern regarding parental participation
within the IEP, and advised that the facility is a supporter of
parental participation and understands the obligations of the
IEP team. He pointed to a collaborative process happening
across the country wherein school districts work with
educational services providers in allowing them to deliver
services. He then referred to Ms. Hope's concern regarding the
fiscal impact to the state and school districts, and reiterated
that the district of residence actually is better served because
when the child returns home funds are available to continue
serving that child as opposed to the current model where the
funding remains in residential facility location.
CHAIR KELLER advised Ms. Hope that the committee will continue
to work with her and the policy decisions that must be made
clear by the committee before it presses on.
9:19:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Hope to restate her
concern regarding IEP teams and placements of students.
MS. HOPE advised that currently under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which is federal law, is the
requirement that placement be an IEP team's decision. She
offered that the placement decision and responsibility for
implementation of an IEP in this bill would fall outside of the
IEP process. She opined that North Star Behavioral Health is
stating it will follow the IEP process, but the placement and
IEP process is a large part of that.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS questioned what language gives her
pause that placement decisions would circumvent the existing
process for placement decisions.
MS. HOPE stated the concern regarding the placement is basically
turning over the IEP responsibility to a private entity as
currently the school districts have the ability to do that if it
is an IEP team placement decision. She said, in this case, she
would be turning over that responsibility along with the funds
to the private entity as a matter of course.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested the page and line
number.
MS. HOPE advised page 6, lines 9-31, and page 7, "where it
basically says a school district 'shall' provide funding and it
goes through which students it would provide it for, and then it
speaks to 'within five days of admission' the center notifies
the district, and then the district turns funding over to the
residential psychiatric facility."
9:22:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS replied that it broadens the
criteria significantly for how a student can be placed into a
RPTC and receive state education funding. He questioned whether
Ms. Hope anticipates that the additional four points listed in
statute that, from her professional perspective, there would be
a significantly greater number of student that would have that
placement decision made that the district's IEP team might not
concur with.
MS. HOPE said "I can't say," as her concern is more that this
does not follow federal IBEA law and that the state turning
responsibility over to another entity to provide special
education services for a child with an IEP is currently spoken
to in IBEA, and it specifically states that the school district
where a private school is located is responsible for the
education of that child.
9:23:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked the definition of IEP and walk the
committee through the process of how the team determines an IEP.
MS. HOPE explained that an IEP is an individual education
program developed by a team including the parents, and specific
members of a school district that work with the student, which
is governed by federal law. She offered that an IEP is
developed after a multi-disciplinary evaluation occurs, which is
also governed by federal law. The IEP team meet annually and
reviews the child's needs based upon the evaluation that had
been done and the child's current progress and present levels of
performance, and develops a program for that child for the next
year.
9:25:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked the percentage of students in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District with IEPs.
MS. HOPE responded 14.3 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND queried the North Star Behavioral Health
people how many of the students placed in their facility have
IEPs and assumed that the Anchorage School District has a
similar number of students.
MS. ALSUP answered that the facility's number fluctuates and
currently it is below 30 percent for special education IEP
students.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND estimated twice as many children with
IEPs have psychiatric issues that cause them to be hospitalized
in long term care facilities.
MS. ALSUP reiterated that the number fluctuates and it could run
lower than that number.
9:27:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ questioned that once a student attends
the facility, what current coordination occurs with regard to
their IEP.
MS. ALSUP related that currently once a child starts attending
the school they become an Anchorage School District child and
the Anchorage School District takes over implementation and
coordination of their IEP with the parent or guardian, and the
district the child came from is no longer involved in the IEP
process.
9:28:07 AM
DAVID BOYLE, Alaska Policy Forum, said he has experience with
residential treatment centers in that one of his children spent
time there. He noted that the discussion highlights the
problem, specifically within the Anchorage School District, that
the intensive needs money the legislature appropriates does not
follow the child as it goes into the general fund of the
Anchorage School District. He opined that statute could be
changed such that the money would follow the child and be
earmarked for the child with intensive needs. He addressed the
constitutionality of the bill and pointed to the Alaska State
Constitution, Article VII, Section 1, which read:
The legislature shall by general law establish and
maintain a system of public schools open to all
children of the State, and may provide for other
public educational institutions. Schools and
institutions so established shall be free from
sectarian control. No money shall be paid from public
funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other
private educational institution.
MR. BOYLE referred to "no money shall be paid from public funds
for the direct benefit of any religious or other private
educational institution," and he asked the committee to turn to
page 6, line 7, which read: "A school district shall provide
funding under this section to a residential psychiatric center
for educational services provided to a student." He opined this
may be indirect funding of another educational institution and
reminded the committee of the Sheldon Jackson's case in the mid-
1970s, which also included indirect funding and was interpreted
to mean it could not occur as the funding must stay within the
actual public school system. He suggested addressing the
constitutionality of this particular bill.
CHAIR KELLER responded that he appreciates him pointing this out
for the record and part of the committee consideration.
9:31:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND referred to his comment "intensive
needs" and asked for a witness to explain the difference between
intensive needs special education and where that falls in the
grand scheme of things. She asked whether Mr. Boyle's child had
intensive needs required to be served by the school district, or
a regular IEP.
MR. BOYLE explained that his child was not intensive needs and
did not have an IEP through the school district, but was
provided some educational services by the Anchorage School
District within the residential facility.
MS. ALSUP replied that an intensive needs child is a child
deemed to need more services that require extensive specialties
and specialists, such as children who go beyond just needing an
IEP that does not serve ... She deferred to Mr. Lyons.
MR. LYONS explained that intensive needs are children who need
more intensive services delivered by a variety of different
professionals, such as a child on the autism spectrum that needs
a small class size possibly with one-to-one assistance with
intensive speech and occupational therapy. In that regard, the
IEP team meets and determines that this child's needs are above
and beyond services, the district identifies those and ...
9:34:21 AM
CHAIR KELLER offered that these terms are defined in statute and
the funding issue is the BSA times 13 for intensive needs in
special education which is "general 20 percent over in the
process of the formula and that all has to be calculated out as
part of the process in figuring out what the district should
pass forward."
MS. ALSUP added that for an intensive needs child to be
classified as intensive needs it must go through the district to
EED to be classified as an intensive needs student.
9:35:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to [AS 14.16.310(b)] page 7, line
5-7, which read:
(b) ...includes federal impact aid, the required
local contribution under AS 14.178.420(b)(2), the
local contribution under AS 14.17.410(c), special
needs funding under AS 14.17.420(a)(1), intensive
services funding under AS 14.17.420(a)(2), ...
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned the funding wherein a small
district has an intensive needs student and that student remains
in the district and is not transferred to a residential
psychiatric treatment center for education. He asked whether a
portion of the intensive needs funding to the district goes to
the residential psychiatric treatment center for education. He
stated he brought it up for clarification at the next meeting.
CHAIR KELLER announced CSHB 82 is held in committee.
9:36:58 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:36 to 9:43 a.m.
HB 85-STUDENT DATA & ASSESSMENTS
9:43:49 AM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 85, "An Act relating to college and career
readiness assessments for secondary students; and relating to
restrictions on the collection, storage, and handling of student
data."
9:44:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO moved to adopt CSHB 85, labeled 29-
LS0301\F as the working document. There being no objection
Version F was before the committee.
9:44:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, advised
that Legislative Legal and Research, while working on Version P,
Sec 7, page 7, unintentionally included "criminal records and
delinquent records," which has been deleted in Version F and
people have access to delinquent and criminal records.
9:45:34 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:45 to 9:48 a.m.
9:48:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD repeated the technical change by
Legislative Legal and Research Services.
9:48:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 29-
LS0301\F.1, which read:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "and career readiness"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 14.03.075(a) is amended to read:
(a) A school may not issue a secondary school
diploma to a student unless the student takes a
[COLLEGE AND] career readiness assessment or receives
a waiver from the governing body.
* Sec. 2. AS 14.03.075(c) is amended to read:
(c) The department shall provide funding for the
fee for a single administration of a [COLLEGE AND]
career readiness assessment for each secondary student
within two years of the student's expected graduation.
* Sec. 3. AS 14.03.075(e)(1) is amended to read:
(1) "[COLLEGE AND] career readiness
assessment" means the [SAT, ACT, OR] WorkKeys
assessment;"
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 4"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, line 7, through page 7, line 28:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 10. AS 14.07.165 is amended to read:
Sec. 14.07.165. Duties. (a) The board shall adopt
(1) statewide goals and require each
governing body to adopt written goals that are
consistent with local needs;
(2) regulations regarding the application
for and award of grants under AS 14.03.125;
(3) regulations implementing provisions of
AS 14.11.014(b);
(4) regulations requiring approval by the
board before a charter school, state boarding school,
or a public school may provide domiciliary services;
(5) regulations implementing the [COLLEGE
AND] career readiness assessment provisions of
AS 14.03.075, providing for the needs of a student who
is a child with a disability, and setting standards
for a waiver under AS 14.03.075; the regulations may
address the conditions, criteria, procedure, and
scheduling of the assessment;
(6) policies and procedures consistent with
relevant state and federal privacy laws that
(A) limit access to individual and redacted
student data to
(i) persons who require access to perform
duties assigned by the department, a school district,
or the administrator of a public school;
(ii) the student who is the subject of the
data and the student's parent, foster parent, or
guardian;
(iii) authorized agencies as provided in
state or federal law or by an interagency agreement;
(B) restrict student data transfer except
as necessary to
(i) fulfill student requests;
(ii) carry out a school transfer or student
location request; or
(iii) compare multistate assessment data;
(C) prohibit collecting and reporting
student data pertaining to
(i) medical and health records without the
written consent of the student's parent, foster
parent, or guardian or of a student who is 18 years of
age or older or is emancipated under AS 09.55.590;
(ii) biometric information;
(iii) political or religious affiliation;
(iv) items in a student's home;
(D) provide for a detailed data security
plan for collecting, maintaining, and sharing student
data that addresses
(i) privacy;
(ii) authentication;
(iii) breaches in security;
(iv) training;
(v) encryption; and
(vi) other data retention and disposition
practices;
(E) prohibit the sharing of student data,
including electronic mail addresses and other
electronically stored information, for a commercial
purpose, including marketing or advertising purposes;
(F) provide for other security measures.
(b) In this section,
(1) "child with a disability" has the
meaning given in AS 14.30.350;
(2) "student data" has the meaning given in
AS 14.03.200."
Page 7, line 29:
Delete "AS 14.03.075(a), 14.03.075(b),
14.03.075(c), 14.03.075(e)(1), and 14.03.078(a) are"
Insert "AS 14.03.078(a) is"
CHAIR KELLER objected for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the WorkKeys exam being
administered to the 11th grade students provides a comparison of
student performance across the state and within a school, and
last year House Bill 278 changed the requirement. He advised
that this amendment takes that exemption out of the bill and the
state would require WorkKeys of all students across the state,
and it removes the SAT or ACT option. He commented that the
sponsor drafted the amendment subsequent to Representative
Seaton's concerns expressed during the last meeting.
9:50:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised that House Bill 278 required the
WorkKeys, SAT, and ACT, and Version F does not require those.
She explained that this amendment requires WorkKeys, and within
Version F, students can take WorkKeys but the state is not
required to pay for it, and students can also take it at a state
job center. She stated the amendment was prepared based upon
Representative Seaton's concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that for several
years the state required that WorkKeys be taken in the 11th
grade and allowed it to be upgraded during a student's senior
year, until House Bill 278 wherein comparisons of districts and
schools across the state couldn't be compared. The purpose of
WorkKeys, he advised, is to provide a comparison, and an
incentive for students to be career ready as their skill level
scores were provided on student transcripts and available for
employers. Thereby, he pointed out, students were actually work
ready and employers across the state were aware of the
applicant's necessary work skills. He stated WorkKeys assists
70 percent of Alaska's students to have a document stating the
student is career ready when they graduate.
9:54:07 AM
CHAIR KELLER asked Representatives Seaton and Reinbold whether
they recall the previous bill before the committee this year
that discussed WorkKeys, and stated that an individual could
refer back to that bill for additional information. Chair
Keller withdrew the question.
9:54:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ advised she does not recall the specific
house bill number Chair Keller was referring to, but she was
bothered by the testimony on that bill that if the legislature
did away with the requirement of the WorkKeys exam, it would not
be easily accessible. She pointed out that students would have
to go to the local Department of Labor office, which does not
exist in every village. She expressed that she was tremendously
bothered by that fact as WorkKeys is an exam that can be taken
by students in the workforce arena. She stated she
wholeheartedly supports this amendment for reasons stated by
Representative Seaton, and that the exam would be provided in
every school.
9:56:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER advised he was co-sponsor of another bill
removing the WorkKeys, SAT, and ACT requirement and is opposed
to Amendment 1.
CHAIR KELLER removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER objected.
9:56:53 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Drummond, Seaton,
and Vazquez voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives
Colver, Kreiss-Tomkins, Talerico, and Keller voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reviewed the fiscal note, stating that
it is a positive for the budget.
9:58:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 2, page 6,
subsection 18, and delete lines 4-6.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to an April 6, 2015 handout with
regard to a summary depicting the same situation across other
states. He referred to Kentucky in that students are not
allowed to opt out of the assessments as Kentucky gives its
standardized assessments to be certain it does not have
underperforming schools, gaps in students not receiving their
appropriate education, and teacher evaluation. He related that
when students opt out, the teacher evaluation system doesn't
work. He advised that opting out destroys the accountability
system. He further advised that parents can opt out of public
education completely, but they cannot stay in the public system
and choose which provisions to follow and disregard.
10:01:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER stated that Alaska's current teacher and
student evaluation process is a work in progress. He said the
AMP is currently being conducted and feedback is not good. He
expressed concern for the vehicle being used and said a more
meaningful system needs to be developed and until that occurs an
opt-out option needs to be available. Parents expect to have
certain freedoms in Alaska and the opportunity to make choices.
He said he is in opposition to Amendment 2.
CHAIR KELLER announced CSHB 85, is held in committee with
Conceptual Amendment 2 on the floor for the next meeting.
10:03:32 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Education Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:03 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB82 Work Draft LS0307 W.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Version A.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 FiscalNote.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Supporting Documents Nome Public Schools Testimony.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Supporting Documents (70-30 list).pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| HB82 Supporting Documents e-rate schools.PDF |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 82 |
| CSHB102 draft version P.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| HB102.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM HEDC 4/13/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| HB102 Support Mike Lyons.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| CSHB85 Version F.pdf |
HEDC 4/10/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 85 |